About your Search

20130201
20130228
Search Results 0 to 8 of about 9 (some duplicates have been removed)
they have been very silent on this issue in terms of where they are going. harry reid, look at the number of democrats up for re-election. the president has to get his own party's house in order before they can proceed to get a political victory. >> interesting. speaking of harry reid, i want to play a clip from him. he's asked if he would vote for dianne feinstein's plan. >> i didn't vote for assault weapons last time because it didn't make sense. i'll take a look at it. >> restrictions on high capacity magazines? >> i think it's something we have to look at. >> take a look or vote for? >> let's see what it is. i have been supported by the nra on occasion. i know wayne lapierre. he's been extremely pleasant with me. we have a good relationship. i am not here to demean the organization. >> if the democratic senate majority cannot give a full support, how will it pass in. >> a couple things. harry reid along with a number of democrats and republicans, and there are plenty of republican that is have been quiet on this as well. politically speaking, they are taking a step back, waiting to le
for him. and i think democrats are very gleeful. if they dance jigs, i think harry reid is dancing one. he was the one candidate who could win that seat. he was running even or slightly ahead of markey. and while i think he was not as strong as he was going to be, he was when he first won. if the mood got a little bit bad on president obama, he could have won it again. he's smart to be running for governor. a, he would have had to run over and over again. and d, republicans do much better. the last republican win was senator ed brook way back in 1972. so i think it's good for democrats and probably good for scott brown. >> now the republicans felt they had a shot with brown. and i remember when they were killing susan rice unfairly in my opinion. the thought was they really were after susan rice because they wanted john kerry and so that kerry could -- the seat would go to scott brown or republican. now brown is out, they don't have a clear shot at the seat. this has to help president obama. scott brown not running is a big win for the president if the republicans can't come up with a comp
's be honest about why harry reid did that. they were going in recess. if reid held the vote on friday and they got cloture, they would not have had a final vote on him until saturday or sunday. he was accommodating the republicans and the democrats' senate schedule. >> oh, no. >> let's be very clear. >> what's so wrong with voting after the recess? what's so wrong with -- >> why not vote now? is he qualified now? if he is, he's qualified today, thursday and tomorrow. he's qualified. if he's not qualified, vote against him. >> let's take a listen right now with both of you to john mccain on thursday. kristen, i'll get you to respond right after. >> to be honest with you, it goes back to there's a lot of illwill towards senator hagel because when he was a republican he attacked president bush mercilessly, at one point said he was the worst president since herbert hoover, said that the surge was the worst mrunter since the vietnam war, which is nonsense. and was very anti his own party and own people. people don't forget that. you can disagree but if you're disagreeable, people don't for
, chris, something that stood out to me is the backbone of harry reid. had he perhaps more of a backbone during these filibuster negotiations, and filibuster reform, perhaps he wouldn't be sitting here having this discussion anyway, and some of the fault, maybe a large portion of the fault lay with harry reid for us even having this discussion this morning? >> well, in fairness, look, both sides have threatened to do something about the filibuster and both sides are reluctant to do it, because quite frankly, they know the once that were in the majority now know at some point they'll be in the minority and vice versa and you know, there is some deference made to some rules of the senate and one of the things they all say if we'd stop the filibuster we'd become just like the house and i promise you on in congress on capitol hill that's not a compliment. >> is there any merit to what democrats are saying about the g.o.p. blocking this and putting the country at risk 'cause it's such an important security post? >> no, i mean, for one thing, the senate democrats said well, we're not going to
and need more time. it was harry reid who called this vote as sort of an attempt to call their bluff saying this is enough, you're delaying this for no reason but i don't think this is going to help the republicans' image especially when they're going around saying we're not actually trying to stop this nomination. we're not actually filibustering, so what are they doing? i think especially for people who are sick of the sort of washington games, this isn't a good image for them. >> jake, let's talk about this break that congress is on. house speaker nancy pelosi blamed republicans for not using this time more productively. take a listen. >> they manufactured the crisis and instead of having us try to avert that crisis they go on a nine-day recess. why? ? why? people outside the congress are saying no deal, no break. >> why, jake, why? >> nancy pelosi did similar things when she had control but that simplifies a complicated issue. democrats and republicans and the president are miles apart when it comes to averting the sequester. democrats want to raise taxes. republicans say they don't wan
Search Results 0 to 8 of about 9 (some duplicates have been removed)